"There have always been underground scenes, and a lot of what this community considers the "standards" or canonical or whatever, that music enjoyed only cult status until the age of the internet suddenly made it so everyone knew who the Pixies and the Smiths are"

I don't really believe there is less good music today than during any other era. I don't see any kind of objective drop in musicianship or quality. When it comes to something specific like "rock" or "guitar music" it might be harder to make something that sounds lasting at this point, but I think that is because of the extreme oversaturation of the last 6 decades, not a drop in what musicians are capable of without capitalists cracking the whip at them to make a better selling product

i'm not sure we are disagreeing; we're just not exactly overlapping.

there are amazing musicians out there with great skill and craftsmanship today as well, for sure. i think it's clear that's not what's up for debate here. but, what i'm saying is that they are somehow more esoteric and hard to find now, in an endless pool of free stuff for the average music listener who doesn't have the energy to explore. and on top of that, even though i agree the music business was ugly, abusive and ultra-capitalist, again - i would argue that it pushed artists to put out better finalized work. because the process was so difficult, they had to make sure a thousand times over that the statement they were going to hand in was correct, and accurate.

it's one of those micro-change things that completely changes everything on a larger scale; it's just like having the option of time-correcting a drum hit on the grid in Pro Tools, and not having it. just by virtue of having it, the door was opened for 90% of modern recordings to get 'tidied up', glossy, time/pitch corrected and perfect. when you're in the eye of the storm you think you're only nudging something slightly and improving it, but in reality there's a destructive effect to it when EVERYBODY does it.

it's kind of the same thing with that freedom artists have now; theoretically it should help produce better music, but in practice, it just causes many to become lazy and less accomplished at what they do.

there are amazing musicians out there with great skill and craftsmanship today as well, for sure. i think it's clear that's not what's up for debate here. but, what i'm saying is that they are somehow more esoteric and hard to find now, in an endless pool of free stuff for the average music listener who doesn't have the energy to explore. and on top of that, even though i agree the music business was ugly, abusive and ultra-capitalist, again - i would argue that it pushed artists to put out better finalized work. because the process was so difficult, they had to make sure a thousand times over that their statement is correct and accurate.

it's one of those micro-change things that completely changes everything on a larger scale; it's just like having the option of time-correcting a drum hit on the grid in Pro Tools, and not having it. just by virtue of having it, the door was opened for 90% of modern recordings to get 'tidied up', glossy, time/pitch corrected and perfect. when you're in the eye of the storm you think you're only nudging something slightly and improving it, but in reality there's a destructive effect to it when EVERYBODY does it.

it's kind of the same thing with that freedom artists have now; theoretically it should help produce better music, but in practice, it just causes many to become lazy and less accomplished at what they do.

yeah I don't disagree with a lot of your points at all. my perspective could also be skewed because everyone I know likes music seriously. I do not have any friends who are like casual radio listeners and I never meet people like this.